WATCH: Megyn Kelly Says It’s Wrong For Black Protester To Stare At White Chicago Cop (VIDEO)

Megyn Kelly took a view of the Chicago protests that only someone working for Fox News (or our current GOP presidential candidates) can take. When video from the protests showing a stare-off between a black protester and a white Chicago PD officer surfaced, she and her guest, Richard Fowler, got into an argument about it. Fowler said the protester wasn’t doing anything wrong, and that the stare was the protester’s First Amendment right. Kelly, however, questioned whether it was “appropriate:”

Kelly: You think that’s fine? You have no problem with this?

Fowler: This is his First Amendment right.

Kelly: It’s not a question of what his constitutional rights are. It’s a question of what’s appropriate.

During a protest, confrontation happens. As long as the confrontation remains peaceful and legal, propriety isn’t a question. Police officers have to be prepared for something like this to happen, and they have to be prepared for the situation to escalate, or not. Propriety doesn’t enter into it.

What would Kelly’s response to this have been if the staring protester had been white? When the white privileged see things like this, it’s easy to say that the person of color was behaving badly. It’s easy to say he was wrong. If this protester had been shot, even if he literally hadn’t done anything but stare (which is exactly what happened), Kelly and others would say the officer was provoked. If he was white, Kelly and company probably would have had a different opinion.

This protest is in response to a video that CPD just released, which showed Officer Jason Van Dyke shooting 17-year old Laquan McDonald 16 times. McDonald did have a knife but wasn’t close enough to lunge at Van Dyke, as the department repeatedly stated was the case. In fact, the video shows he was walking away.

Former police commissioner Bernard Kerik said, to Megyn Kelly, that “you’re going to have guys like this, you know they want to instigate.”

Perhaps the protester was trying to instigate, however, the officer, kept doing his job. He stood there, monitored the crowd, and didn’t even return the protester’s stare very much. In other words, he didn’t do anything that could have escalated the problem. If nothing else, he was waiting for the protester to escalate it. That didn’t happen, but to hear Kelly talk, you’d think he spit in the officer’s face, poked him, shoved him, or otherwise physically attacked the officer. Literally nothing happened except an attempted stare-down.

There is always the possibility that the protester was trying to express his anger and frustration at what CPD has done in as peaceful a way as he could muster. Contrary to what many conservative whites think, black people, even young black people, aren’t any dumber than the rest of us. Watch the video below:

Featured image via screen capture from embedded video

  • churst714

    You know what’s not appropriate Kelly? It was not appropriate for that officer to shoot a teenager 16 times as he was walking away and even as he lay injured on the ground. That surely is not appropriate which is why he’s charged under the law with 1st Degree Murder which, by the way, seems very appropriate to me.

    The young man staring at the cop did not have a weapon, was not yelling threats or obscenities, did not touch the officer, was not inciting violence. Am guessing the officer might have been uncomfortable, ready for whatever might happen but he did not escaslate the situation. I give the officer alot of credit. He did his job the way he should & nobody got hurt, nobody got shot or killed in that interaction. Cops are human too & it is a dangerous job & they do have a right to defend themselves if directly attacked. But we are not a facist police state & the police’s own motto - protect & serve - is important.

    • Bronxboy47

      We were not meant to be a police state, but I’m afraid things have gone terribly wrong.

    • mattdl

      That young man expressed his anger and outrage at the police in a peaceful manner. It was symbolic. How Megan Kelly can miss that is beyond me.

      • churst714

        My guess is that’s not what she wanted to see, didn’t fit narrative of both Fox & herself. Willful ignorance is a choice.

  • mattdl

    “I don’t like the way that boy looked at me”

    • Jeff Clauser

      ….so i shot him

  • mattdl

    Megan…..seriously, black on black crime has nothing to do with race. It has everything to do with poverty and unemployment and easy access to firearms. When police kill unarmed black people for not justifiable reason, which they do routinely, it has everything to do with race.
    Furthermore, that racism is evidence as to why that community suffers from unemployment and poverty.

  • marytg

    Megyn how you feel and what would you do if it as your son. now we can’t share what other rights do you Republicans want to take away

  • Otto Greif

    Give him a banana.

  • Sherwin Phillip Brown

    You know what’s more inappropriate??? Murder!!!

  • Jeff Clauser

    While the man has the first amendment right to stare down the office i think the next question should be: should he? Is it really a prudent thing to do?

  • Airb0rne4325

    “What would Kelly’s response to this have been if the staring protester had been white?”

    What would your response be if he had a Gadsden Flag in his hand and an NRA pin on his shirt?

  • IxoIII

    That protester should be put in his place! No cop needs that kind of bulls**** ! It’s no wonder these people are getting what they so RICHLY deserve…….wait..what? This isn’t Breitbart? Oh.. ..nevermind.

  • nehpets123154

    Megan Kelly is of that mindset,who think and believe,that “Black People” are subservient and/or not equal. To those of her persuasion”White People” !!!!

  • Matthew Jones

    So if they scream and yell, it’s appropriate since it fits the narrative of blacks being irrational and overstepping their bounds.

    If they peacefully protest with silence and sit ins, that’s inappropriate since he’s invoking his constitutional rights.